Colorado House ethics panel schedules Aug. 13-14 hearing on Rep. Mandy Lindsay

The Colorado House Committee on Ethics will hold an Aug. 13-14 hearing on allegations involving Rep. Mandy Lindsay’s handling of a caucus checking account, after adopting a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and expanding her opening statement time.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. both days in House Committee Room 112 at the state Capitol, according to the General Assembly’s Aug. 13 agenda. The detailed agenda remains to be determined. The committee said Aug. 5 that it could extend the hearing or recall witnesses if the evidence is not completed in two days.

The committee previously found probable cause that Lindsay may have committed an ethics violation. Under House Rule 49(d), it can take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and allow Lindsay to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and have counsel. It may dismiss the complaint or recommend reprimand, censure or expulsion to the House. A legislative legal memorandum says a majority of elected House members is required for reprimand or censure and two-thirds for expulsion.

What the committee adopted

At its Aug. 5 meeting, the committee unanimously:

• adopted a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard;
• increased Lindsay’s opening statement from 10 minutes to 20 minutes;
• approved a process for staff to send Lindsay’s attorney a redlined set of proposed stipulated facts for written review; and
• revised its witness plan, including subpoenas and flexibility to extend the hearing or recall witnesses.

In its recorded discussion, members accepted uncontested timeline facts but said stipulating to what happened would not resolve whether Lindsay had a fiduciary or other duty to prevent personal and caucus money from being commingled. They also said references to financial reviewer William Quinn’s reports would establish only what the reports said, not whether the reports were complete, reliable or correct.

Lindsay’s proposed witnesses are Lindsay, Speaker Julie McCluskie, Quinn and Rep. Brianna Titone. The committee’s revised list also includes Reps. Judy Joseph and Bob Marshall, Kate Ehrlich and Jacqueline Davidson. Majority Leader Durango was removed from the committee’s list and Marshall was added. Staff were directed to reissue Joseph’s subpoena with the new hearing date, and Quinn’s attorney may appear remotely if needed.

Members expect Lindsay to testify last, though the order could change. The proposed schedule allows about 90 minutes for McCluskie and Quinn, one hour for Joseph and Marshall, 30 minutes for Titone, Ehrlich and Davidson, and up to two hours for Lindsay.

Payments at issue

The committee reviewed 27 proposed stipulated facts and reserved several financial questions for testimony and argument. They include:

• a $6,358.68 check Lindsay wrote to herself in 2024, which remains disputed as a substantiated reimbursement for expenses she personally incurred;
• a $2,500 check Lindsay wrote as a return of membership dues and later deposited back into the account. Members noted that Joseph questioned the transaction on April 5, 2025, before the repayment described in the proposed fact;
• a $500 check issued from the account to Lindsay on Jan. 21 without a notation; and
• a $489 check issued March 21 and recorded in the transaction ledger as “reimbursement no purpose.”

The committee deleted proposed statements linking unpaid dues to the caucus’ lack of funds and describing Lindsay depositing personal funds into the account, saying those propositions were not sufficiently clear or supported as stipulated facts. The record separately refers to $6,853 in proposed reimbursable expenses, but the Aug. 5 discussion did not establish how that figure relates to the $6,358.68 check.

The hearing will address whether Lindsay’s handling of the account violated an applicable duty and what weight to give Quinn’s financial reviews. No final finding or sanction had been issued as of Aug. 6.

Lindsay has said she respects the committee and looks forward to the process. In a statement quoted by Colorado Politics, she said, “I respect the ethics committee, trust in the work they will do and I look forward to the process.” Her attorney told the committee that Lindsay’s explanation — that she acted when she saw the fund was going to become negative — would be presented through testimony rather than treated as an agreed fact.